Subscribe to this blog

Get Email Updates!

Search This Blog

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." -Cicero

I'm just going to say it. I don't believe we as American's know very much about our foreign policy and what we are implementing and what we are trying to achieve around the globe. Not because we don't want to know, but because our handlers, I mean leaders, don't want us to know, so they create new narratives for us to believe. They have lied to us and continue to do so on a wide range of subjects. Benghazi-gate. The Fed and how money works. The real identity of Barack Obama. Who really owns the media.What is going on at the U.N. and Agenda 21Building 7The Progressive movement inside of our governmentThe list goes on and on...

We the sheeple are often and routinely very easy prey for the politicians and propagandists. Knowing this, I can't help but have an uneasy feeling about exactly what is going on in the DMZ as compared to what we are being told here, on the other side of the globe. And for that matter, what is going on in Syria and how exactly we are involved. Obama and his crony communists and progressive media elite say one thing to our face here at home, all the while bald-face lying via teleprompters, why do we believe them now? - W.E.

Pyongyang threatens no one. Media scoundrels say otherwise. So does Obama. On the one hand, he claims no one wants war on the Korean peninsula. He urges Pyongyang "to pursue peace." On the other, he's heightening tensions. He accused its leaders of "bad behavior," "threats," and "provocations." He's creating crisis conditions that didn't exist. He's spoiling for trouble doing so. On Friday, John Kerry warned Kim Jong-un. Test-launching its Musudan missile threatens to inflame "an already volatile, potentially dangerous situation," he said. He claimed Washington's open to negotiations. Denuclearizing the North comes first. Since Korean War hostilities ended, America never negotiated in good faith. Promises made were broken. North Koreans remember. Efforts to normalize relations were spurned. A longstanding uneasy armistice continues.Fidel Castro commented. He discussed "great challenges" humanity faces. The "situation created in the Korean Peninsula (is) one of the most serious dangers of nuclear war since the October Crisis around Cuba in 1962, he said." If war erupts, "the peoples of both part of the Peninsula will be terribly sacrificed…." It'll provide added proof that Obama is "the most sinister character in the history of the United States." Avoiding war is his call, said Castro. It's also up to Americans to demand it. Heightening tensions is a US specialty. On April 13, a "Joint Statement at the United States-Republic of Korea Foreign Ministers' Meeting said: The United States reaffirms its commitment to the defense of the Republic of Korea in the wake of recent unacceptable provocations by North Korea. Both sides agree on the importance of the denuclearization of North Korea, knowing that North Korea's dangerous nuclear and missile programs threaten not only its neighbors, but also its own people. The United States stands vigilantly by the Republic of Korea's side. (Both) countries remain committed to the goal of peaceful denuclearization.America's nuclear armed and dangerous. Its arsenal and global delivery systems make the unthinkable possible. Strategic and tactical nuclear weapons target the region.Washington asserts the right to use them preemptively. Eventually perhaps they'll do so. The threat is real. Offensive missile defense systems are regionally land and sea-based. They encircle Russia, China and North Korea. They're key parts of America's first-strike policy. Obama accelerated their deployment.At the same time, America encourages Russia and China to reduce their nuclear arsenals. It wants North Korea denuclearized. Doing so makes a US first-strike more likely.America's the only country ever to use nuclear weapons. It's not hard imagining they'll do so again. East Asia's a prime target. China, Russia and North Korea know it. Thermonuclear disaster is possible. Washington threatens the region. North Korea is blamed. On April 12, New York Times editors headlined "The North Korean Problem," saying:

….Washington (is) willing to resume long-stalled negotiations but only if the North Koreans….move seriously on denuclearization. But the window into North Korea’s nuclear intentions and American policy in response was as blurry as ever. The Defense Intelligence Agency rang alarms bells on Thursday with a report that it had concluded with 'moderate confidence' that the North was capable of launching a missile with a nuclear warhead. "North Korea poses a more imminent nuclear threat than Iran." Washington so far "failed to curb either the North's nuclear weapons program or its bellicosity."Numerous New York Times reports, commentaries and editorials falsely claim a North Korean threat. Hyperbole and misinformation substitute for hard facts. Fingers point the wrong way.

North Korea "manage(s) to concoct….provocative announcement(s) aimed at Washington." Kim Jong Un declared a "state of war." "Could this untested, 30-year-old dictator be preparing to (do so against) the United States or South Korea? The worrying reality is that it is virtually impossible for outsiders to know for sure." It's "playing an old and familiar game. (It's) stoking a crisis atmosphere in order to rally support (and ) pressure the United States and its allies into opening negotiations." Previous US administrations "learned the hard way, answering provocations with diplomacy will not lead to concessions….only to another round of provocations."As usual, Post editors twisted truth. Pyongyang's blamed for US belligerence and duplicity. They want tougher policies imposed.

They spurn peaceful conflict resolution. They want measures increasing the chances for war. They might get what they wish for. They may regret having done so.

"If you push them too far, they might do something stupid." They're "unpredictable."

According to Dan Henninger:

Kim Jong-un's father and grandfather were "more unstable than he is." He accused them of offenses they didn't commit. It's standard media scoundrel practice.Henninger claims Pyongyang's "capable of (a) Pearl Harbor-type attack."Kim Strassel said North Korea "manufacture(d) a crisis." It did so to "secure high-level talk(s and) get concessions from the West." The remaining discussion continued along the same lines. Pyongyang's blamed for Washington's provocations. Fingers point the wrong way. At the same time, Journal editors claimed Iran's about to "go nuclear." Chicago Tribune editors headlined "Another North Korea? No thanks. So squeeze Iran. Harder," saying:

At any moment, North Korea may fire more missiles….

As all of us wait to see what comes next, no one in the West knows the intentions of….Kim Jong Un. North Korea has a growing nuclear arsenal. It commands world attention with its threats of nuclear retaliation against the US and other enemies. It may be able to launch a nuclear weapon by ballistic missile. "All of this worries not only American officials but also US allies in the region…."Now imagine a world with not one rambunctious and nuke-emboldened North Korea, but two. That is, imagine a world in which the Islamic despots of Iran, too, control a nuclear arsenal.Today's Tribune editors replicate former publisher Robert McCormick. He was outspoken and conservative. He was rabidly right-wing, anti-union and belligerent.He was heir to the International Harvester fortune. He became the Republican party's kingmaker. He supported America's 1916 Mexico invasion. He was a cavalry major in the conflict.In WW I, he was an artillery officer. He rose to the rank of colonel. He was ardently anti-Communist. His editorials condemned it. Today's follow in his footsteps. They support tough measures against North Korea and Iran. They blame both countries for America's belligerence.Alexander Voronstsov heads Russia's Institute of Oriental Studies. He calls North Korea's fears justifiable. It's concerned about annual US/South Korean war games.They prepare for war. Perhaps that's Washington's intention. Its policies belie its rhetoric. Obama's waging multiple imperial wars.America wants unchallenged global dominance. East Asia represents the final frontier.Washington deplores peace. It prioritizes war. It threatens humanity. Attacking North Korea or Iran could precipitate global war. The danger is real. Both countries have justifiable cause for concern.Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on
the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.
All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Ever since the Syrian destabilization effort began nearly two years ago,
a significant portion of alternative media outlets have been exposing
the fabricated story perpetrated against both the American and Syrian
peoples regarding the nature of the so-called Syrian “rebels” who, in
reality, are nothing more than foreign-backed death squads.While the
mainstream media continually portrays these morally deficient
mercenaries as “freedom fighters” and peaceful protesters, the ranks of
the rebels are made up almost entirely of hired killers, religious
fanatics, and other agents of the Anglo-American intelligence networks.

Even while the death squads have done everything in their power to
assert their fanaticism in the face of the world, the mainstream media
has typically remained silent on the issue; and Western governments who,
up until the recent Libyan disaster, demanded that Americans surrender
their most basic civil liberties due to the threat of al-Qaeda, now
simultaneously demand that Americans support the same organization
against the sovereign nation of Syria.

It is now common knowledge that the destabilization effort is being
supported by the United States, Britain, France, and the whole of NATO,
as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other feudal monarchies, in addition
to the true Mad Dog of the Middle East, Israel. However, the level to
which these countries and hence their military and intelligence agencies
play a part has been largely shrouded in mystery.

Yet, at times, it is possible for those of us who are aware of the
historical treachery and the levels of control over public perception
held by both the mainstream media and Western governments to
occasionally catch a glimpse of the true mechanisms of “color
revolution” and destabilizations and, thus, put the pieces of the puzzle
together.

Putting together these pieces is not as hard as one
might imagine. After all, the information and evidence of foreign
intelligence and military intervention in Syria was publicized several
years before the operations began to culminate in the recent
“rebellion.” As Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report has documented on numerous
occasions, the plan to invade and destabilize Syria by using hordes of
al-Qaeda terrorists and mercenaries has been in existence since at least
2007. Cartalucci writes,

A 2007 New Yorker article written by renowned journalist Seymour
Hersh revealed a plan under the Bush Administration to organize, arm,
train, and deploy a regional army of terrorists, many with ties directly
to Al Qaeda, in a bid to destabilize and overthrow both Syria and Iran.
The plan consisted of US and Israeli backing, covertly funneled through
Saudi proxies to conceal Washington and Tel Aviv's role, in building
the sectarian extremist front.

According to Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,"
Saudi Arabia, a more credible candidate for openly interfacing with the
militants, openly admitted that it was a danger, but that they "created
it," and therefore could "control it," in meetings with Washington. The
plan called for not only setting up terrorist enclaves in nations
neighboring Syria, including Lebanon, Jordan, and US-occupied Iraq, but
also for building up the Muslim Brotherhood, both inside Syria's borders
and beyond - including in Egypt.

Hersh also pointed out the long history between the Saudi Royals and
their funding of religious fanatics for the purposes of destabilization
since the 1970s proxy war against the Soviet Union, the Iranians, and to
the more recent (in terms of the writing of the article) possibilities
of using such types of fighters in Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Iran, and
Syria. He wrote,

Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have
deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni
extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a
threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic
radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.”

The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target
of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among
the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not
be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and
charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy
is heavily dependent on this bargain.

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda
first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the
Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy
war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis
were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious
schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many
of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among
them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al
Qaeda, in 1988.

In a more telling passage, however, Hersh describes the connection between the Saudis, Jihadists, and the U.S. government. He wrote,

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other
Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close
eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve
created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t
want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah,
Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with
Hezbollah and Iran.”

Hersh continued by stating that the Israelis, the Saudis, and the
Americans have “developed a series of informal understandings about
their new strategic direction.” In addition to the security of Israel,
the weakening of Hamas, and the countering of “Shiite ascendance in the
region,” there was also a fourth goal of the three entities. Hersh
wrote,

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide
funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir
Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the
Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to
negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah. The Saudi
government is also at odds with the Syrians over the assassination of
Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, in Beirut in 2005, for
which it believes the Assad government was responsible. Hariri, a
billionaire Sunni, was closely associated with the Saudi regime and with
Prince Bandar. (A U.N. inquiry strongly suggested that the Syrians were
involved, but offered no direct evidence; there are plans for another
investigation, by an international tribunal.)

Hersh also quoted Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druze minority in
Lebanon and adamant Assad opponent who stated to Hersh that he had
actually traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with then Vice President
Dick Cheney regarding the possibility of weakening and destabilizing the
Assad government in Syria. Hersh stated,

Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in
Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of
undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the
United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian
Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement
founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent
opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the
Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city
for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people.
Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The
Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel.
Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between
Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door
to effective Syrian opposition.”

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has
already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front
is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a
faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who
defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A.
officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and
financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial
support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was
getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House.
(In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from
the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents. [emphasis added]

Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, who
told Hersh that he believed that the United States wished to cause the
partitioning of both Lebanon and Syria. Hersh states that, “In Syria, he
[Nasrallah]said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos
and internal battles like in Iraq.”

The idea that Syria would be partitioned is an interesting concept to
say the least since it echoes the typical geopolitical strategy of
“Micro States and Mini States” espoused by Neo-Liberal members of the
governing class such as Zbigniew Brzezinski. Yet, the ruling regime at
the time of the writing of Hersh’s article and the interview conducted
with Hassan Nasrallah was the Neo-Conservative regime of Bush/Cheney, a
branch of the Anglo-American ruling class that typically expresses
geopolitical strategy in the manifestation of hard power and ham-fisted
warfare.
The fact that the Brzezinski method of using puppet states, mercenaries,
and religious fanatics against target states while “leading from
behind” was being planned and orchestrated during a branch of the ruling
elite that typically exhibits a different strategy is telling in that
it shows both that the plan to partition Syria was developed long before
the recent “rebellion” and that the plan crosses not only both
political parties but also both factions of the ruling elite. In short,
the existence of such a plan during the Bush/Cheney regime and the
attempted implementation of the plan by the Obama regime shows that not
only are political parties operated by the same (somewhat) hidden forces
but even the hidden hand behind the hidden forces are themselves more
centralized than what many informed political analysts would choose to
believe.

The Syrian partition issue is also interesting considering the fact that
a potential false flag attack was discovered by German hackers
involving the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian death squads to be
blamed on the Assad government and accomplishing this goal. This
“attack” would have then been followed by the entrance of ambulances
emblazoned with the words “Syrian People’s Relief.” Although the pretext
would have been humanitarian aid, the ambulances would have been, in
reality, nothing more than armored personnel carriers designed to create
“buffer zones” in the border areas of Syria during the midst of a
crisis and the panic that would have resulted.

Yet Hersh’s information, which was published in 2007, was not the first
mention of the Syrian destabilization being manufactured by Western
powers.

In 2005, for instance, writing about the possible options for defeating
the then-powerful insurgency in Iraq, Michael Hirsh and John Barry of Newsweek wrote an article entitled, “’ The Salvador Option: The Pentagon May Put Special -Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq,’”
where the writers acknowledged a plan by the Pentagon to install
Special Forces hit teams or death squads made up of religious fanatics
to engage in the policy of assassinations and outright terror. This
strategy came to be known as “The Salvador Option,” after the methods
used by the United States in El Salvador in the 1980s which resulted in
the deaths of nearly 50,000 innocent civilians.

With this in mind, Hirsh and Barry write tellingly of the plan to use such a strategy in Iraq and Syria. They state,

[O]ne Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise,
support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents
and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria,
according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains
unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or
so-called 'snatch' operations, in which the targets are sent to secret
facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries. [emphasis added]

It is interesting then, that death squads would be invading and
terrorizing the nation of Syria only six years later, attempting to
accomplish some of the very goals set forward by the Anglo-Americans as
indicated by the aforementioned reports.

Yet, while the majority of the fighting (as well as the looting,
beheading, torturing, and raping) is being undertaken by the death
squads themselves, one also wonders just what hand actual intelligence
agents have played in the foreign-backed destabilization.
It is almost a certainty that the Western intelligence agencies that
coordinated so much of the foreign insurgency would not leave the death
squads, with their quality of intellect (or more accurately the lack
thereof), alone to control the entirety of the operations themselves.
The operation itself is much too important to be left in the hands of
mere death squad operatives.

It is for this reason that many have suspected for some time that the
intelligence agencies and military special ops divisions have themselves
been involved in the fighting; or, at the very least, the direct
coordination inside Syria.

Without a doubt, U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford has played a major role in
the organizing of the Syrian death squads, alongside former CIA Director
and U.S. General David Petraeus as I have documented in past articles
such as “Syria Under Attack By Globalist Death Squad Experts.”
In addition, serious questions have been raised regarding the role
Norwegian General Robert Mood has played in the death squad
organization.

The question of direct intervention via actual intelligence agents as
opposed to mere coordination, however, has been a murkier question. Yet,
although harder to decipher in terms of hard evidence, such a
suggestion is not entirely without evidence.

After all, it was reported early on in the Syrian destabilization effort that 13 French military officers
acting as mercenaries/death squad participants were captured by the
Syrian government, all the while the mainstream Western media reported
the events as “peaceful protest” and a grassroots level organic Syrian
uprising against an oppressive regime.

Around the same time, hacked emails obtained by Anonymous in December 2011
and released by WikiLeaks in steady drips ever since February 27, 2012,
revealed that NATO troops, including those from the U.S., U.K, and
France, were likely already operating inside Syria.

The emails were obtained from the private U.S. intelligence firm,
Stratfor, and were apparently sent by Stratfor’s Director of Analysis,
Reva Bhalla (bhalla@stratfor.com)
and contain discussion of a December confidential Pentagon meeting
which was attended “by senior analysts from the US Air Force, and
representatives from its chief allies, France and the United Kingdom.

Tellingly, the email’s author stated that US officials “said without
saying that SOF [special operation forces] teams (presumably from the
US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey) are already on the ground, focused on
recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.” Later
in the email, it was stated that “the idea 'hypothetically' is to
commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back
of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within.”

This should come as no surprise since Western troops and intelligence agents maintained a heavy presence
inside Libya during the destruction of that nation, increasing their
presence as the destabilization and subsequent invasion succeeded. Regardless of the direct involvement of Western forces inside
Syria, however, there is absolutely no doubt that the Syrian conflict is
very much the result of Anglo-American treachery, control, and
coordination. The entire invasion of secular Syria with religious
fanatics, mercenaries, and maniacs was the brainchild of Western
governments and Israel, the Mad Dog of the Middle East, along with the
usual Gulf state feudal monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and
others acting as proxies and puppets.

Indeed, with the recent announcement of even more commitments to openly
arm, aid, and assist the death squads, the idea that the Syrian
destabilization was organized and is being controlled by Western
governments is no longer up for debate.

The only debate yet to be had is whether or not citizens of Western
countries will continue to allow their governments to run roughshod over
both their rights and the rights of sovereign people in foreign
countries.

Clearly, the continued assault on Syria is part of a major agenda that
is slowly unfolding before our eyes. It would be wise for Americans and
all other Western nations to get off of the Path to Persia before the mutual destruction of the world is the only thing left at the end of the road.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He
has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author
of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville
has published over 200 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects
including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties.
Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every
Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.